Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 8 October 2006

Various big media television networks ^ | 8 October 2006 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[Arizona Carolyn]

Yes, I think she was something like 14 when her mother died. She is one of those angry people and it always comes across. One thing liberals have in common, most are very angry.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Sodom and Gomorrah and they all protect their own until election time, then those one too many drinks in the local pub comes back to haunt you -- if you're a Republican.

[Morgan in Denver]

Thanks for the comments. This was something that came to mind that I was hoping to get some feedback on.

[spatso]

"that value voters are childish and idiots"

I thought I got it right. If I remember correctly he was responding to a comment made by Tony Perkins during the first half of the show. He seemed pretty angry. I don't think so but I could be wrong. I was flipping back and forth between Sunday morning shows and listening to a bit of pre game.

[MNJohnnie]

I think he also goes by Mr Min...

Actually your call screener dubbed me that.

[eeevil conservative]

LOL!

Hey- BIG question-- I know Korea has CLAIMED a nuke test....

I know we have confirmed an explosion....

has anyone confirmed that this explosion was really nuke in nature and not just a bunch of dynomite?

[MNJohnnie]

Are you saying you think (know?) "Min" was MNJ? I heard that call!

Yes, that was me. Not real sure why the call screener dubbed me Mr Min.

[MNJohnnie]

Yeah the seismic activity is different. Don't think you can get that much dynamite to detonate all at once. However, Fox News is saying the US is confirming it was a nuke.

Not real sure what to make of this yet. Waiting for the 1st Talking Head to claim "Bush let them man to distract us from Foleygate"

[Seattle Conservative]

Thanks Rod. My sister and I believe it's really important to teach my nephew respect for the military, police, fire fighters, etc. From the time he could talk and somewhat understand we've made it a point of telling these folks thank you for your service or thank you for protecting us and having him do the same. We've also taught him respect for the flag (when he sees one on a pole - he says look - there is MY flag or MY country's flag). He was very excited when they bought a new flag for their yard. I suspect I/we did nothing different than most FReepers would have done. We're ALL great Americans :-)

BTW - 1 of the guys was in the Golden Knights Parachute Team and gave my nephew a cool sticker (like their patches). I explained to him that they were very special, what they did and that President Bush's father, who was our former President, jumped out of a plane when he was 80 and that team helped him.

[Seattle Conservative]

I don't like the way they use Swiftboating either. You have come up w some great synonyms! Quite appropriate I'd say.

[Seattle Conservative]

"When the FBI went after William Jefferson of LA who defended him -- Hastert! We don't get the same treatment from the left side of the aisle."

IIRC Hastert was defending the Congress and the separation of powers (e.g., the Exec branch shouldn't have the authority to search congressional (legislative branch)offices. While I understand his stance on this, I think that if someone in congress has done something and, the DOJ/FBI gets a search warrant, why should congressional office be off limits. That said, it does scare me to think of what might happen w a Pres Hitlery and some of the snakes the Clintons associate themselves with being in the DOJ ---it wouldn't surprise me at all if they found liberal activist judges to approve search warrants for fishing expeditions in Pubbies offices.

While Pelosi, Jefferson, et al were screeching about his offices being searched, I suspect this same cast of characters would say nada if they wanted to search Foley's or another Pubbies office -- including Hastert's.

I hope Hastert and the other Pubbies finally wake up to the fact that they can't keep playing fair w the Dims - -they just will not get the same treatment if the situation were reversed (the Dims screaming that they should be more equal on the committees when the Senate spread was very close comes immediately to mind).

[Seattle Conservative]

Some great thoughts there Morgan! Makes perfect sense to me!

[Seattle Conservative]

It definitely makes sense especially considering we know the following about Dim polls and pollsters:

1. they ask and phrase questions to get the results they want (e.g., Bush bad Dims good).

2. they often poll adults or registered voters rather than likely voters

3. they often poll on weekends, when its been shown that more Dims than Pubbies are home

4. they usually over-sample Dims and Ind to Pubbies

5. they often poll urban areas (where people tend to be more liberal), rather than rural areas - -where people tend to be more conservative and are usually out working in the yard, on the farm, etc.

and, I don't know how many need to be polled to get a good sampling, but some of the polls I've seen are between 6-700 or so folks - is that enough (especially given the above) for a good, true sampling?

I also read something in the last couple of weeks that made sense to me (my words here): With the do not call lists and more people w cell phones (sometimes instead of land lines) does that reduce the number of people available to be polled (especially conservatives)? IIRC it could be up to a 5% difference in the poll results.

[Seattle Conservative]

I think there are lots of possibilities for this. I remember reading that they were looking at some deposits in Montana and I think a couple of other western states. Some months ago, there were also large oil shale deposits found along the Rockies. I think the largest hurdle is probably going to be to fight the environmental wackos on doing the mining of the coal and oil shale. Look at how they've been w drilling in Alaska in a place few people live - - I can only imagine the fight w mining, etc in the lower 48. Even though this would bring lots of jobs and could make us more energy self-sufficient (which in turn helps us w Nat'l Sec - -e.g, we won't be held hostage by the likes of Chavez and Immanutjob, etc.) Just my $.02

[Seattle Conservative]

"Nelson is the dumbest legislator in congress."

Possibly - - but, I believe my 2 Senators hold that *distinction* --Patty Osama Mama Murray and Maria Can't-vote-well (I'd love to see her out this election, but I'm not sure it's going to happen. That said, I think McGavick has given her a bigger run for her money than anyone anticipate. Dino Rossi could have taken this seat in a landslide IMHO; however, he didn't want to go to DC).

[Morgan in Denver]

I agree with your evaluation of polls, including the cell phone issue.

The do not call list does not apply to politics if I remember right. (I think there's an exemption for political phone calls.)

All the rest of what you say makes sense to me as well. Most polls I see need to have a plus or minus 3% over/under to be valid as well as a sampling of 1000 called. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but that's what I remember.

I usually add 5-8% for Republicans to any poll the press publishes to compensate for the biases and sloppy polling. That's been pretty accurate for the past number of years.  The polling companies are in business to sell their polling service so the poll they are most interested in having accurate is the final one before an election.  All the prior polls can be explained away as sampling based on information at the moment, and things change daily. Both political party "internal" polls are more accurate, IMHO, because the polling company  is held to a higher standard of performance.

[Morgan in Denver]

To be clearer, I add 5% to polls with a plus or minus 3% and 8$ to polls with plus or minus 4% and under 1000 people polled. (Sometimes 7% IF the polling company has a better reputation for accuracy.)

[Seattle Conservative]

Didn't know there was an exemption for political calls - thanks for that.

FWIW Bush has been polling fairly steadily between 40 and 42 on Rasmussen for several weeks now - I tend to trust his polls more than any other)

Here's another example of how I think the DBM tries to change Public opinion on polls that I posted to a thread Oct 4. Using headlines to make it look like Bush's # has have dropped to the 30s. It isn't until you get down in the article to find out the new poll shows his #s at 39 and there is a margin of error at 3.5%, which means his #s may have not changed!:

Here's an example of something that was on the web at msnbc.com this a.m. As w the NY Slimes and other MSM, I think they count on a lot of people to read the headline and not necessarily read the whole article

Here's the headline:
Sex scandal, Iraq book take toll on Bush, GOP
NBC/WSJ poll: Bush back in 30s; Dems favored for control of Congress

If you go down the page, you'll see this - -note that the margin of error rate is 3.5%, which could mean the President's numbers haven't changed at all or not much (at least they admit that the drop is within the margin of error) - but that's not what the headline implies to me:

Presidential approval
In the poll, Bush's job approval rating is at 39 percent among registered voters, a drop of three points since September, when his rating had increased to its highest level in months after he gave a series of speeches on national security leading into the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The three-point drop, however, is within the poll's margin of error of plus-minus 3.5 percentage points.

Note again that they are polling registered voters, not likely voters. Also, this poll was conducted over the weekend - I've read many times that polls on weekends get more Dims, and the pollsters know that, as Pubbies are usually at church and/or out doing things w their families.

Here's another example: The President was in CA campaigning yesterday - even visited an elementary school named after him and will be going to AZ and CO. Wonder why that isn't on this calendar:
MSNBC Political Calendar

OCTOBER
1-3 John Edwards visits Uganda
3 Bob Riley’s birthday
John Kerry campaigns with Ohio Democrats
4 Chuck Hagel’s birthday
Ken Blackwell & Ted Strickland debate in Cincinnati, Ohio

[Morgan in Denver]

Good post. All of this conforms with what you and I were saying. No surprise. Well, the surprise is on them because MSNBC is so biased the perception is they will say anything, trying to improve their numbers. MSNBC seems to think the more they are outrageous, the greater numbers of viewers they will have. I don't think that will happen. Some of their numbers are up but that's from the radical left learning there's another network on their side and making fantasy claims against President Bush.

I know this because a Democrat friend sent me a column and link to MSNBC.  This was new for him to do and he's excited to find it.

[Arizona Carolyn]

often poll urban areas (where people tend to be more liberal), rather than rural areas

Good point. We live in a small city, in what could be considered rural Arizona. I have never been polled on a National level and none of our friends have, either. Here the GOP is still strong. If they polled Flagstaff or Tucson they will get a completely different outlook on the election than if they polled this area of AZ.

I do receive calls from Laura Bush to remind me to vote ~LOL~